Brown v. Can. (A.G.), (2015) 368 B.C.A.C. 262 (CA)
|Judge:||Chiasson, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A.|
|Court:||Court of Appeal of British Columbia|
|Case Date:||January 08, 2015|
|Citations:||(2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 262 (CA);2015 BCCA 102|
Brown v. Can. (A.G.) (2015), 368 B.C.A.C. 262 (CA);
633 W.A.C. 262
MLB headnote and full text
Temp. Cite:  B.C.A.C. TBEd. MR.032
Gerald Brown (appellant/plaintiff) v. Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada as represented by the Attorney General of Canada, and the Minister of National Revenue (respondent/defendant)
(CA041699; 2015 BCCA 102)
Indexed As: Brown v. Canada (Attorney General) et al.
British Columbia Court of Appeal
Chiasson, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A.
March 12, 2015.
In 1996, the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) reversed an Overseas Employment Tax Credit (OETC) that had been given to Brown and reassessed his tax liability. Brown unsuccessfully challenged the reassessment. The CRA's efforts to collect the tax debt owed by Brown largely came to an end after 2004. Brown filed an action on February 19, 2013. Fundamentally, Brown's claims were advanced on the basis that he was entitled to the OETC despite the Federal Courts' decisions to the contrary. He contended that even though he lost in those courts, the CRA should have changed its mind in pursuing him. He contended that the CRA's collection efforts (1) violated his rights under the Charter; (2) constituted "misfeasance in public office" and "malfeasance in public office"; and (3) that the CRA acted negligently and in breach of a duty of care owed to him. The defendant applied for summary judgment to dismiss the action as statute barred.
The British Columbia Supreme Court, in a decision reported at  B.C.T.C. Uned. 357, allowed the application. The judge held that Brown's claims were statute barred and that he was not entitled to any postponement or suspension of the limitation period under the Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, which was in force when the action was commenced. Brown appealed. He advanced six issues: (1) concern with the judge's comment that he did not raise the Limitation Act in his pleadings; (2) the judge impermissibly weighed evidence on the summary proceeding; (3) the judge erred in refusing postponement of the limitation period based on Brown's disability; (4) pursuant to s. 6(3) of the Limitation Act, running of time was postponed; (5) the judge rejected his postponement argument based on s. 6(4) of the Limitation Act by reaching conclusions of fact based on "conflicting versions of events"; and (6) the judge ruled on matters of fact based on questionable material.
The British Columbia Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Limitation of Actions - Topic 9004
Persons under disability and exemptions and exclusions - Persons under disability - What constitute - See paragraphs 14 to 19.
Limitation of Actions - Topic 9301
Postponement or suspension of statute - General - See paragraphs 14 to 19.
Limitation of Actions - Topic 9304
Postponement or suspension of statute - General - When plaintiff has knowledge of facts leading to a conclusion of reasonable prospect of success - See paragraphs 15 to 16.
Practice - Topic 5710
Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - Evidence - See paragraphs 14 to 21.
Practice - Topic 5719
Judgments and orders - Summary judgments - To dismiss action - See paragraphs 14 to 21.
Levitt v. Carr et al. (1992), 12 B.C.A.C. 27; 23 W.A.C. 27; 66 B.C.L.R.(2d) 58 (C.A.), refd to. [para. 7].
Moses v. Lower Nicola Indian Band (2015), 367 B.C.A.C. 202; 631 W.A.C. 202; 2015 BCCA 61, refd to. [para. 22].
Limitation Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 266, sect. 6(3), sect. 6(4) [para. 8]; sect. 7(9) [para. 9].
The appellant appeared in person;
N.S. Johnston and E.G. McDonald, for the respondent.
This appeal was heard on January 8, 2015, at Vancouver, B.C., before Chiasson, Frankel and Neilson, JJ.A., of the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The following judgment of the Court of Appeal was delivered by Chiasson, J.A., on March 12, 2015.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP